Whether through Apple’s long-term vision or the growing realization of an opportunity, iOS has become the OS in Apple’s future. iOS has already shipped on more than one billion devices; where Macintosh unit sales are measured in millions per quarter, iOS devices are multiples of tens of millions. Built to fit the constraints of the first iPhone’s limited processing power, iOS is still much smaller than OS X: 1.3 Gigabytes for the latest release, versus 8.41GB for my MacBook’s System Folder. iOS has a lot of room to grow into a fuller, richer OS, unencumbered by past sins.

If we accept the scenario of an iPad evolution into an iOS-based laptop, or even desktop, what happens to the Mac as we know it today?

Picture (no pun intended) digital cameras. With its ubiquity, connectivity, performance, and photo editing software, the smartphone has swallowed the point-and-shoot market, but it’s not a replacement for the pricey DSLR that’s beloved by the hobbyist and essential for commercial jobs such as sports, product, or food photography.

By analogy, even if an iOS-based laptop comes to serve many needs, there are jobs where a 27” iMac, its 5K display, 4GHz Intel processor, 64 GB of RAM, and terabytes of disk storage is irreplaceable – and will stay so for some time. The two will co-exist just like smartphones and DSLRs.

If nothing else, it’s fair to say the part of iOS that most people consider its nucleus is quickly being pushed aside.

Astute observation. Across smartphones, that’s been the point of Siri, “Okay Google”, Moto voice, lockscreen widgets, homescreen widgets, various OEMs’ “today” views, and other similar conveniences for quite some time. But, now, with Google Now on Tap and iOS 9 improvements to Siri (suggestions, always-on “Hey, Siri”) that trend is even stronger. Smartwatches, too, are promoting the idea, and capability, of using your smartphone’s homescreen less than ever.

Apple has ramped up its hiring of artificial intelligence experts, recruiting from PhD programs, posting dozens of job listings and greatly increasing the size of its AI staff, a review of hiring sites suggests and numerous sources confirm. […]

One former Apple employee in the area […] estimated the number of machine learning experts had tripled or quadrupled in the past few years. […]

All told, Android Wear for iOS should work almost the same as it does for Android phones. You’ll get notifications from your favorite Google services like Gmail, Google Calendar and Google Now, as well as Apple’s Calendar, Google Fit, the weather, alarm, agenda, Translate and so forth. It’ll work with voice queries and you can change the watch face just as you can with the Android app. According to Google, you don’t need to have any of these apps installed; they’re all built into the iOS app itself (We’re guessing that you’ll be asked to login with your Google credentials and it’ll go from there). Any third party app notifications that show up on your iPhone will also show on the watch. However, if you want true native third party app syncing, apparently that’s still in the works.

This could be good for consumers and for Android Wear watch sales. Consumers who use iOS can chose additional watches, and Android Wear watches can now reach an expanded market. The bigger the market for smartwatches and wearables, the faster they’ll improve. Three big questions, however:

How many iPhone users will opt for an Android Wear watch? The reason to do so would be: price, fashion, utility (e.g., always-on display, cellular connectivity), or custom watch faces (for either fashion or utility purposes).

How good can iOS interoperability get over time? Today, iOS interoperability is fairly constrained. And though it may remain so, the nature of those constraints will likely evolve. Google’s ability to utilize iOS can improve, too. Finally, Android Wear developers can now try and impress a new set of customers.

Will Android Wear OEMs take specific action to capitalize on this? For them, it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, it means more consumers can buy their watches. (Swatch, for instance, is probably quite pleased right now.) On the other hand, since most of the OEMs are smartphone makers, they’re giving consumers fewer reasons to buy an Android smartphone. Would they dare advertise this benefit? Can you imagine a Samsung or Motorola ad that highlights iOS compatibility? We’ll see.

These are all questions and possibilities. Let’s check back and see how this really develops.

Siri and Machine Learning

To-date, Siri improvements have been meaningful, but modest, especially if you recall that Siri debuted 3.5 years ago.

This is the first keynote where Apple used the terms “machine learning” and “deep linking”.

Between Siri intelligence (project Proactive), the News app, Apple’s data center build out, and competitive pressure from Google, my hypothesis is that Apple has put its foot down on machine learning and intelligence. And that doesn’t even take into account the machine learning Apple will need if it pursues a car.

If there’s a list of Apple’s top-5 computing priorities for the next five years, I believe machine learning is on it

If there’s a list of Apple’s top-5 computing priorities for the next five years, I believe machine learning is on it. Mark Gurman, who writes for 9to5Mac, mentioned this on his appearance on The Talk Show:

A lot of this is really to tackle Google […] It’s very hard to just […] one day […] decide to drop Google search from your platform. [But] year over year, Apple is adding features that […] reduce the reliance on Google […] teaching the consumer that Google is not necessary.

Still not convinced? How about this, from Apple’s iOS 9 preview page (bold emphasis is mine):

“Siri powers a more intelligent Search. […] [it’s] the technology that powers Search on your iPhone and iPad. And now you can get even more answers when you type in the Search field. […] A head start on every search. […] Your search screen is prepopulated […].”

Machine learning is to 21st century devices as the graphical user interface was to 20th century computers [in terms of how] critical it will be to a high-performance product

I’m changing my mind about Google’s data-volume-based advantaged. I believe Apple sees a volume of (anonymized) user data that’s on the same order of magnitude as Google (on mobile). Google Now may provide Google with more question / intent data, but Apple sees the bigger picture of what consumers (in aggregate) do / need throughout the day. I base my belief on iOS’ huge installed base, high app downloads and usage, and Apple’s full-stack access to iOS devices.

With so many dots to connect: Mac, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV, Siri, Maps, News, HealthKit, HomeKit, and CarPlay, Apple will have great opportunities to add value to consumer’s daily life.

Machine learning is to 21st century devices as the graphical user interface was to 20th century computers. I don’t mean that as a user interface metaphor, but as a way to express how critical it will be to a high-performance product.

Apple is poised to deliver Siri’s proactive features to a broad user base very quickly:

Math: iOS has a larger unified installed base X faster adoption of iOS releases X support for more legacy devices.

Select unknowns:

Impact of 3rd party support (to Google Now on Tap or Siri’s proactive features) to growth.

Impact of Apple’s self-imposed privacy guidelines on the feature set / consumer uptake.

[Apple’s] odds of “proficiency” are high. But the odds of being better than Google are not great.

So, can Apple develop world-class machine learning capability?

At a super high level, let’s consider the large scale data products that Apple has developed in the past few years: Messages, Siri, Maps, iCloud, Apple Pay. Without getting into details here, the track record of these services is mixed, to say the least. So, odds of success with machine learning? Well, the odds of “proficiency” are high. But the odds of being better than Google are not great. Possible, but not great.

If you’re Samsung, Lenovo, or Xiaomi what do you do to differentiate from Apple or other Android OEMs?

Which brings up another point: how soon until “Hey, Siri” works a) un-tethered and b) with the proactive features?

For a comparison of Siri’s intelligence features vs. Google Now and Cortana, see this.

Finally, all this is yet another reason why Android and Windows OEMs will perennially struggle to do more than stay on the treadmill. If you’re Samsung, Lenovo, or Xioami, what do you do to differentiate from Apple or other Android OEMs?

I couldn’t resist. These are all great companies, but they wield different degrees of influence, depending on the area. It’s also a reminder: The order of influence wasn’t always the same. Things change.

Apple: We have SDKs for iOS. Google: We have SDKs for iOS & Android. Microsoft: We have SDKs for iOS, Android & Windows. #io15#ioxnj

First, these are all related to, or enabled by, the bottom term: Machine Learning. It’s the ability for a computer to learn new things: shapes, patterns of behavior, relationships, and more. This is already a very important capability for Google, and is going to be a critical one for Apple, too. Why? Well, briefly, to enable Apple devices to make sense of the user’s context (location, activity, history, messages, related information, intent, etc.) and, in turn, to help the user achieve her objective, stated or implied. Things like catching a plane, buying a present, or meeting a friend. Or adjusting exercise frequency, sleep, or diet. The possibilities are many.

The figures [Google showed] speak to the […] massive, massive level of investment Google has made

Second, the figures Google mentioned — 30-layer-deep neural net, 100M places cataloged, 1B entities recognized — these are figures that not only speak to the utility that Google Now on Tap will have, they also imply the massive, massive level of investment Google has made. Investment in computing hardware (a good deal of it custom) and software (neural nets, understanding natural language, learning, user interface, etc.).

Finally, this is what Apple’s project Proactive — or anyone’s machine learning ambition — is up against. The question, for Apple is, does it compete head-to-head (symmetrically) or in a focused way (asymmetrically)? Probably the latter. Either way, I can’t wait to see.

Our sources note that even A5-based Apple devices, including the original iPad mini and discontinued iPhone 4S, will be able to run iOS 9. […]

Instead of developing a feature-complete version of iOS 9 for older hardware and then removing a handful of features that do not perform well during testing, Apple is now building a core version of iOS 9 that runs efficiently on older A5 devices, then enabling each properly performing feature one-by-one. Thanks to this new approach, an entire generation (or two) of iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches will be iOS 9-compatible rather than reaching the end of the iOS line.

His contacts don’t outline the logic for extended support, but below are several likely reasons. Essentially, it helps Apple reach more consumers with devices and increases the installed base of consumers that can buy apps and services, including Apple’s expected new video and music streaming services. And – crucially – it helps Apple reach lower price points without resorting to building low-margin products.

Buyers who keep the iPhone benefit from its longer life. Family members benefit from a more useful hand-me-down.

Buyers (or re-sellers) that sell it can earn a higher price, or a faster sale, or simply deal in that product type, profitably, for a longer time.

The second owner is happy to buy a device that will last longer. Android devices usually don’t bring that benefit.

This enhances Apple’s reputation (helping sales), earns goodwill (what Android device receives OS support for very long?), and sell more apps and content (except in markets with high piracy; yes, like China).

Equally, as Apple rolls out new services – video streaming, music streaming – it benefits by allowing more devices to access those new services.

Finally – but still notably – it’s a mechanism for Apple to reach low price points that it can’t reach with new iOS devices.

A bit more on #6. The longer an iPhone (or iPad lives), the lower its street price becomes. And yet, with good iOS support, it still works. Effectively, that’s an iOS device at a price point that Apple would never otherwise meet. It’s at a price point (range) currently addressed by low-cost Android OEMs, who survive (?) on razor-thin margins. The longer iOS devices live, the bloodier the low-cost Android smartphone market becomes.

Now, you might say: Apple doesn’t make money on that older device — it sold it years ago. So who cares about reaching a lower price point? Technically, Apple can still make apps, content, and services revenue. And it’s a sale that Android misses. And, honestly, almost no one makes money at those price points anyway.

As Apple rolls out new services – video streaming, music streaming – it benefits by allowing more devices to access those new services.

Apple’s pressure-sensing Force Touch technology could be exclusive to the so-called “iPhone 6s Plus,” according to Taiwan’s Economic Daily News (via GforGames). The report, which claims Taiwanese manufacturer TPK will be responsible for supplying Apple with the Force Touch sensors, makes no mention of the “iPhone 6s,” leading to speculation that the technology could be reserved for the larger iPhone 6s Plus.

KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who has a respectable track record at reporting on Apple’s upcoming plans […] notes that a 4-inch model is unlikely to be released this year.

Some people hear rumors, automatically assume the vendor in question will do X (where X = the “wrong” choice), and then criticize the vendor. I’m not in that camp. I just think it will be very interesting to a) try and think thru what Apple might do and b) see what trade-offs Apple actually makes.

At first glance, I think Ming-Chi Kuo is right. First, are we seeing any indication that Apple needs to do this? I don’t believe so. I’ll admit, using an iPhone 6 one-handed is bit harder, but I’d wager most (most) people value the display area more.

Second, what sort of compromises would Apple have to make to squeeze the guts of the 4.7″ model into a 4″ body?. You might say “None; they’ll just make the 4″ thicker.” Not likely. And even so, it would be a significant engineering effort, since such a 4.7″-to-4″ transition is not a simple one. Apple is more likely to focus its resources on new features, rather than re-factoring an existing architecture.